Archive for the ‘Fourth Amendment’ Category

As technology continues to evolve and become integrated into our lives, there are significant questions about privacy and security. We’ve discussed before the “Internet of Things,” which is a computerized network of physical objects. In IoT, sensors and data-storage devices embedded in objects interact with Web services. Such connected televisions, refrigerators and other devices can raise privacy and security questions.

For example, consider the “smart” or “connected” car. People buy such vehicles for the benefits of integrating technology into something where they can be for hours at a time. Your car or truck knows where you go and when. It knows how fast you drive and how quickly or slowly you brake. Your car knows if you’re wearing a seatbelt.

Privacy experts have noted that unclear or vague privacy or usage policies could allow companies that collect drivers’ sensitive data to share or sell that information with others, creating databases that may invade the privacy of consumers. For example, the locations where individuals drive to could reveal deeply personal information. Do you go to a church or mosque at the same time every week? Have you visited an adoption or fertility organization? Did you join a protest or demonstration? Did you recently start going to a building that includes the offices of several psychotherapists or one that houses a drug addiction clinic?

One privacy issue recently arose with connected automobiles — and it caught many people off-guard. ABC25 in West Palm Beach, Fla., reported that a Ford car with opt-in 911 Assist allegedly ratted out a hit-and-run driver in Florida. Read more »

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) recently introduced a bill, H.R. 3871, The Stingray Privacy Act (pdf), to limit the use of cellphone surveillance technology known as cell-site simulators or “Stingray” technology. The bill, Chaffetz says, “would require law enforcement to obtain a warrant before deploying a cell site simulator consistent with recently issued federal guidance and the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. H.R. 3871 does provide targeted exceptions for exigent circumstances and foreign intelligence surveillance.” The federal guidance mentioned is recent policies on cell-site simulators released by the departments of Justice (pdf) and Homeland Security (pdf), with various exceptions for special circumstances. The new guidance was released after public and Congressional scrutiny of the use of the surveillance devices.

The Stingray and similar cellphone surveillance technologies are extremely invasive. They simulate a cellphone tower so that nearby mobile devices will connect to it and reveal their location, text messages, voice calls, and other personal data. The surveillance technology scoops up data on every cellphone within its range, so innocent people’s private conversations and texts are gathered, too.

A recent case in New Hampshire illustrates how libraries continue to be battlegrounds for privacy rights. The Kilton Public Library in Lebanon, N.H., a town of about 13,000 people, decided to join Tor, an anonymization network for online activities. It was a pilot for a bigger Tor relay system envisioned by the Library Freedom Project. According toArs Technica, the Library Freedom Project seeks to set up Tor exit relays in libraries throughout the country. “As of now, only about 1,000 exit relays exist worldwide. If this plan is successful, it could vastly increase the scope and speed of the famed anonymizing network.”

The Department of Homeland Security learned of the pilot, Pro Publicareported: “Soon after state authorities received an email about it from an agent at the Department of Homeland Security. […] After a meeting at which local police and city officials discussed how Tor could be exploited by criminals, the library pulled the plug on the project.”

After much criticism of the DHS and local law enforcement interference and petitions to reinstate the pilot project (including one from the Electronic Frontier Foundation), the Kilton library’s board voted a few weeks later to reinstate the project. “Alison Macrina, the founder of the Library Freedom Project which brought Tor to Kilton Public Library, said the risk of criminal activity taking place on Tor is not a sufficient reason to suspend its use. For comparison, she said, the city is not going to shut down its roads simply because some people choose to drive drunk,” the Valley Newsreported. Read more »

There has been considerable debate about the ethical, privacy, and civil liberty issues surrounding the unauthorized or unknowing retention and use of babies’ blood samples for purposes other than disease-screening in the United States and abroad. Often, parents are not told of the possible lengthy data retention period, possible distribution to other agencies, and possible other purposes for which their children’s blood samples could be used. Now, WNCN in North Carolina looks at the situation, and what it finds shows there are also questions about de-identification or “anonymization” of newborns’ medical data.

Asked what the government plans to do with the data, Scott Zimmerman, director of the N.C. State Public Health Lab, said, “So if an outside agency such as an academic institution approaches us and asks for dried blood spots, there are two approaches that can be taken. One, we can get parental consent to release that dried blood sample to an outside entity. We will not release any DBS that contains patient information without parental consent.”

Zimmerman added, “The only other way DBS are released is if they are de-identified.”

Researchers have shown that, often, data that has been de-identified can be re-identified (or “de-anonymized”), and sensitive data could be linked back to an individual. Therefore, there is a significant privacy concern for individuals’ whose information is shared, without their consent, in this manner. Read more »

At a recent dinner, Uber Senior Vice President Emil Michael suggested that Uber could spend “a million dollars” to hire opposition researchers to dig up dirt on journalists who were critical of the company, a service for hailing taxis, private cars or ride-shares. According toBuzzFeed: “That team could, he said, help Uber fight back against the press — they’d look into ‘your personal lives, your families,’ and give the media a taste of its own medicine.” He mentioned specifically focusing on the private details of the life of journalist Sarah Lacy. Lacy’s response is here. Michael has apologized for his comments, and Uber CEO Travis Kalanick has said Michael’s comments “were terrible and do not represent the company.”

If Uber were to investigate journalists or other critics, it would not be the first company to do so. Two cases involved Germany’s Deutsche Bank and Hewlett-Packard. In 2009, Deutsche Bank fired two executives because of a scandal in which bank executives hired investigators who spied on board members and a shareholder. In early 2006, then-Hewlett-Packard Chair Patricia Dunn hired private investigators that used “pretexting” to acquire the personal phone records of board members and journalists in an effort to locate the source of leaks to the media. (“Pretexting” is a fancy word for “pretending to be someone else in order to get his or her personal information” — in this case, phone records.) There were various criminal and Congressional investigations. Dunn said she didn’t know that the investigators were pretexting, and the charges against her were eventually dismissed. The scandal prompted Congress to pass the Telephone and Records Privacy Act of 2006, which prohibits pretexting to gather phone record data (with exceptions for law enforcement).

BuzzFeed also reported that another Uber executive, the general manager of Uber NYC, did something that also raises privacy questions. During an e-mail exchange with a journalist, the Uber executive “accessed the profile of a BuzzFeed News reporter, Johana Bhuiyan, to make points in the course of a discussion of Uber policies. At no point in the email exchanges did she give him permission to do so.” This raises the specter of an insider misusing or abusing his data-access privileges to invade the privacy of an individual. We’ve talked before about the problems that arise when insiders abuse or misuse their access to individuals’ data. There have been many such cases. Read more »

The Senate, by a vote of 58 to 42, failed to advance to debate on the USA Freedom Act, a bill to reform bulk data collection by the National Security Agency. The NSA has faced considerable criticism from the public and lawmakers since revelations by former contractor Edward Snowden concerning the agency’s broad surveillance programs. (He revealed several surveillance programs by the agency.) The USA Freedom Act, introduced by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and a host of Democratic and Republican co-sponsors. The legislation was backed by the Obama administration, which called for reforms in January. The Washington Postreports:

Congress and the administration face a June 1 expiration of a key provision of the USA Patriot Act that enables the intelligence community to gather data for counterterrorism purposes. Section 215 allows the government to obtain specific records relevant to particular investigations. But, as Snowden disclosed, it also was the authority cited by the government to enable the NSA to collect data in bulk. Reform advocates want to end that bulk collection but in general maintain the government’s ability to issue targeted orders for data.

The 58-to-42 vote exposed fissures in the GOP over the legislation, with national security-oriented members and a vocal privacy proponent, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), voting to block the bill — but for different reasons. Read more »